Time: Sun Sep 07 06:24:50 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id GAA02352
	for [address in tool bar]; Sun, 7 Sep 1997 06:21:54 -0700 (MST)
	by usr03.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id GAA11073;
	Sun, 7 Sep 1997 06:19:23 -0700 (MST)
Date: Sun, 07 Sep 1997 06:19:19 -0700
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: Interesting citations on Tax / Income Tax (fwd)

See #51.  

LET'S PULL THIS CASE NOW!!!!

Would someone donate the funds
necessary to purchase a certified
copy of the entire case file?


/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://supremelaw.com


<snip>
>
>Be sure to look up and READ the cases before using the remarks shown 
>for any serious purpose.  HT
>
<snip>
>
>
>Greetings to all,
>
>Here are some citations on the subject of taxes which I have 
>gleaned over the years. Food for thought.
>
>
>              TAX / INCOME TAX
>
>1.   The legal right of a taxpayer to decrease
>     the amount of what otherwise would be his
>     taxes, or altogether avoid them, by means
>     within which the law permits, cannot be
>     doubted.
>     See:
>          Gregory v. Helvering, 293 US 465.
>
>2.   The requirement of an offense committed
>     wilfully is not met, therefore if a
>     taxpayer has relied in good faith upon a
>     prior decision of the court.
>     See:
>          U.S. v. Bishop, 412, U.S. 346 (1973)
>          at 2017, 93 S. Ct 2008.
>
>3.   One does not derive income by rendering
>     services and charging for them.
>     See:
>          Edwards v. Keith, 231 Fed Rep 110.
>
>4.   The citizen is immune, has a right to be
>     free from such taxation and regulating,
>     duties, obligations, sanctions as a
>     matter of law.
>     See:
>          U.S. v. Texas, 384 U.S. 155;
>          Wilson v. U.S., 221 U.S. 361;
>          Pollack v. Flint, 158 U.S. 601, 157
>          U.S. 428;
>          United States Constitution, Article
>          1, Section 2, Clause 3, and Article
>          1, Section 9, clause 4.
>
>5.   Tips are gifts and therefore are not
>     taxable.
>     See:
>          Olk v. United States, February 18,
>          1975, Las Vegas, Nevada. (Wendell
>          Olk) Judge Thomas W. Vlary.
>
>6.   Who would believe the ironic truth that
>     the cooperative taxpayer fares much worse
>     than the individual who relies upon his
>     constitutional rights.
>     See:
>          United States v. Dickerson, 413 F 2D
>          1111.
>
>7.   Only the rare taxpayer would be likely to
>     know that he could refuse to produce his
>     records to Internal Revenue Service
>     agents.
>     See:
>          United States v. Dickerson, 413 F 2D
>          1111.
>
>8.   A person cannot be forced to submit
>     records for inspection.
>     See:
>          United States of America, and Fred
>          J. Rosauer, special agent IRS v.
>          Johanna Vam Poperin, U.S. District
>          Court, District of Minn, 4th
>          Division, 4-71 Civil 635.
>
>9.   The Supreme Court argued that the IRS
>     could not use material gained by IRS
>     agents under a routine questioning for
>     what purported to be a routine audit."
>     The difference between a routine and a
>     criminal investigation was 'too minor to
>     justify departure from the Miranda
>     Doctrine." Justice White drew a mandatory
>     conclusion. "Indeed," he added, "the
>     Black opinion suggested that the Miranda
>     warnings are required through the
>     immensely broad area of investigations
>     which frequently lead to criminal
>     inquiries." (Fourth, Tax).
>     See:
>          The Mathis decision, (No. 726, May
>          6, 1968, 3 910 S.) (Winterhaven,
>          Florida).
>
>10.  "Mr. President, I invite the senate's
>     attention to certain correspondence I
>     have had with Internal Revenue Service
>     Commissioner Sheldon S. Cohen with
>     respect to the legal obligations of
>     citizens to keep records, produce
>     records, and answer questions relating to
>     tax liability. Criminal cases have been
>     veiled in civil clothing to obtain
>     information illegally. Taxpayers have
>     been bullied and threatened especially
>     small taxpayers and those without legal
>     assistance. What should taxpayers do when
>     faced with such a situation? Do all
>     lawyers even know what the obligations of
>     taxpayers are as to record keeping,
>     record producing, and question answering?
>     The answer seems to be "no". "For this
>     reason, I wrote to Commissioner Cohen on
>     April 17, 1967, and received his reply on
>     July 7, 1967. As his reply is most
>     instructive and will help Congress, as
>     well as taxpayers, their lawyers and
>     accountants, I ask unanimous consent that
>     the correspondence be printed in the
>     record." The following are excerpts from
>     the Commissioner Cohen's reply, which was
>     prepared by Chief Counsel Lester R.
>     Vretz, and denominated U.S. government
>     memorandum CC:C1---3487:
>          "Good faith challenges in the form
>     of constitutional and other federally
>     recognized privileges are of course
>     recognized by the service. For example,
>     the privilege against self-incrimination
>     under the Fifth Amendment may be a proper
>     basis by an individual taxpayer for
>     refusing to answer specific questions or
>     to furnish his records." Before
>     recommending prosecution under Section
>     7201 or 7203, the service must usually
>     develop enough information to show a
>     substantial tax liability that was not
>     met in addition to criminal intent. . ..
>     The constitutional rights and other legal
>     rights of all persons will be fully
>     respected and observed. Senator Long of
>     Missouri.
>
>11.  "In recent years, this court has
>     zealously guarded the Fifth Amendment
>     rights of citizens confronted with
>     possible penalties or prosecution for
>     violation of income tax laws . . .. In
>     the United States v. Dickerson, 413 F.D.
>     111 (1969), we held that a Miranda
>     warning must be given to a taxpayer under
>     criminal investigation by the Internal
>     Revenue Service for possible criminal
>     investigation, see also
>     See:
>          United States v. Lackey, 413 F, 2D
>          665 (1969);
>          United States v. Habig, 413 F.2D.
>          1108 (1969) (We would vitiate the
>          effects of these decisions if we
>          ruled today that the government
>          could avoid all Fifth Amendment
>          considerations by merely obtaining a
>          search warrant).
>
>12.  "Statutes levying taxes should be
>     construed, in case of doubt, against the
>     government and in favor of the citizen."
>     See:
>          Miller v. Gearing, 258 F. 225.
>
>13.  Income Tax liability for any one year
>     constitutes a single cause of action.
>     See:
>          Lewis v. Reynolds, 284 U.S. 281.
>
>14.  That the power to tax involves the power
>     to destroy.
>     See:
>          McCullock v. Maryland, 4 Wheaton
>          316;
>          Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall 35, 46.
>
>15.  Until a recent act of Congress, 304 of
>     which forbids discharge of employees on
>     the ground that their wages have been
>     garnished, garnishment often meant the
>     loss of a job.
>     See:
>          82 Statutes 146, Act of May 29,
>          1968.
>
>16.  If the form of the return provided,
>     called for answers that the Defendant was
>     privileged from making, he could have
>     raised the objection in the return, but
>     could not on that account, refuse to make
>     any return at all.
>     See:
>          U.S. v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259, 263.
>
>17.  Person cannot be forced to submit records
>     for inspection.
>     See:
>          United States of America, and Fred
>          J. Rosauer, special agent I.R.S. v.
>          Johanna Van Poperin, U.S. District
>          Court, District of Minn., 4th
>          Division, 4-71 Civil 635.
>
>18.  The taxpayer is certainly free to plan
>     transactions, and he is not obligated to
>     choose an arrangement that produces
>     unfavorable tax results.
>     See:
>          United States Tax Court, 1976.
>
>19.  Respondent is in fear of federal
>     prosecution for violation of federal tax
>     laws; and there is no federal statute
>     which would grant immunity to respondent
>     for the specific offenses set forth in 26
>     U.S.C., Sections 7201 through 7210. In
>     the absence of a federal statute granting
>     immunity for the specific offense to
>     which the question relates, states cannot
>     compel disclosure.
>     See:
>          Mulloney v. United States, 79 F 2D
>          566, and
>          United States v. Johnson, et al., 76
>          F. Supp., 538.
>
>20.  We have held that a taxpayer must assert
>     his privilege against self incrimination
>     to answering any of the questions on the
>     returns, the objection must be stated in
>     response to those specific questions.
>     See:
>          Garner v. United States, 501 Fed. 2d
>          228; affirmed as within the law and
>          affirmed March 23, 1976, 74 S. Ct.
>          100.
>
>21.  The taxpayer may refuse to answer
>     specific incrimination questions on the
>     return, but he cannot refuse to file the
>     return. (34 Am. Jur. 2D Federal Taxation,
>     Paragraph 9388, and
>     See:
>          U.S. v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259.)
>
>22.  You must file a return, but if you
>     object, you must state your objection to
>     each and every question.
>     See:
>          Heligman v. United States, 407 Fed.
>          2d 448.
>
>23.  Broad discretions given tax officers with
>     regard to investigations, is for
>     legitimate tax investigations and is not
>     a license for official harassment of the
>     citizenry.
>     See:
>          U.S. v. Cutter, 374 F. Supp. 1065.
>
>24.  It is clearly established that all
>     citizens must file tax returns (like a
>     subpoenaed witness must appear and submit
>     to questioning) despite hazards of self
>     incrimination . . .. The court intimates
>     that full disclosure of the amounts and
>     sources of income must be made, unless
>     the taxpayer makes an objection to his
>     return asserting his privileges not to
>     incriminate himself.
>     See:
>          Unites States v. Sullivan, 274 U.S.
>          259.
>
>25.  Decisions of the tax court are reviewable
>     in the same manner and to the same extent
>     as decision of the district court sitting
>     in civil action without a jury. Court of
>     appeals is bound by factual determination
>     of the tax court unless they are found to
>     be clearly erroneous or unsupported by
>     substantial evidence on the record as
>     whole. (26 USCA IRC 1954 P 162 (a), (1).
>     See:
>          Charles Schneider & Co. v. C.I.R.,
>          500 F. 2d 148 Ca * 1974.)
>
>26.  Of all the agencies of government who
>     have been most flagrant in violating not
>     only the spirit, but the letter of the
>     Freedom of Information Act has been the
>     Internal Revenue Service which has almost
>     become a national scandal.
>     See:
>          William G. Phillips, sub-committee
>          staff director of the Committee on
>          Government during the 1972 hearings:
>
>27.  The Congress shall have the power to lay
>     and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and
>     excises, to pay the debts and provide for
>     the common defense and general welfare of
>     the United States; but all duties,
>     imposts, and excises shall be uniform
>     through the United States. Article I,
>     Section 8, Clause 1, of the United States
>     Constitution!!!! Some who have not denied
>     the necessity of power of taxation have
>     grounded a very fierce attack against the
>     constitution, on the language in which it
>     is defined. It has been urged and echoed
>     that the power "to lay and collect taxes,
>     duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the
>     debts, and provide for the common defense
>     and general welfare of the United
>     States," amounts to an unlimited
>     commission to exercise every power which
>     may be alleged to be necessary, for the
>     common or general welfare. No stronger
>     proof could be given of the distress
>     under which these writers labor for
>     objections, than their stooping to such a
>     misconstruction.
>     See:
>          Springer v. United States, 102 U.S.
>          586, (1865). (quoting James Madison,
>          as to Article I, Section 8, Clause
>          1, in the Federalist Paper No. 41).
>
>28.  If the federal government should overpass
>     the just bounds of its authority and make
>     a tyrannical use of its powers, the
>     people whose creature it is, must appeal
>     to the standard they have formed, and
>     take such measures to redress the injury
>     done to the constitution as the exigency
>     may suggest and prudence justify. The
>     propriety of law, in a constitutional
>     light, must always be determined by the
>     nature of the powers upon which it is
>     founded. Suppose, by some forced
>     constructions of its authority (which,
>     indeed, cannot easily be imagined), the
>     federal legislature should attempt to
>     vary the law of descent in any state,
>     would it not be evident that in making
>     such an attempt it had exceeded its
>     jurisdiction and infringed upon that of
>     the state? Suppose, again, that upon the
>     pretense of an interference with its
>     revenues, it should undertake to abrogate
>     a land tax imposed by the authority of a
>     state; would it not be equally evident
>     that this was an invasion of that
>     concurrent jurisdiction in respect to
>     this species of tax, which its
>     constitution plainly opposes to exist in
>     the state government.
>     See:
>          Alexander Hamilton, in discussing
>          government's power to tax,
>          Federalist Paper No. 33.
>
>29.  Tax---A ratable portion of the produce of
>     the property and labor of the individual
>     citizens, taken by the nation, in the
>     exercise of its sovereign rights, for the
>     support of the government, for the
>     administration of the laws, and as a
>     means for continuing the various
>     legitimate functions of the state.
>     See:
>          Blacks Law Dictionary, Revised
>          Fourth Edition.
>
>30.  Congress may not, under the taxing power,
>     assert a power not delegated to it by the
>     constitution.
>     See:
>          Regal Drug Co. v. Wardell, 260 U.S.
>          386.
>
>31.  A tax, in the general understanding of
>     the term and as used in the constitution,
>     signifies an exaction for the support of
>     the government. The word has never
>     thought to connote the expropriation of
>     money from one group for the benefit of
>     another.
>     See:
>          United States v. William M. Butler,
>          297 U.S. 1.
>
>32.  The government asserts that even if the
>     respondents may question the propriety of
>     the appropriation embodied in the
>     statute, their attack must fail because
>     Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution
>     authorized the contemplated expenditure
>     of the funds raised by the tax. This
>     contention presents the great and
>     controlling question in the case. We
>     approach its decision with a sense of our
>     grave responsibility to render judgment
>     in accordance with the principles
>     established for governance of all three
>     branches of the government. There should
>     be no misunderstanding as to the function
>     of this court in such a case. It is
>     sometimes said that the court assumes a
>     power to overrule or control the actions
>     of the people's representatives. This is
>     a misconception. The Constitution is the
>     supreme law of the land ordained and
>     established by the people. All
>     legislation must conform to the
>     principles it lays down. When an act of
>     congress is appropriately challenged in
>     the courts as not conforming to the
>     constitutional mandate, the judicial
>     branch of the government has only one
>     duty---to lay the article of the
>     Constitution which is invoked beside the
>     statute which is challenged and to decide
>     whether the latter squares with the
>     former. All the court does, or can do, is
>     to announce its considered judgment upon
>     the question. The only power it has, if
>     such it may be called, is the power of
>     judgment. This court neither approves
>     nor condemns any legislative policy. Its
>     delicate and difficult office is to
>     ascertain and declare whether the
>     legislation is in accordance with, or in
>     contravention of, the provisions of the
>     Constitution; and, having done that, its
>     work ends.
>     See:
>          United States v. William M. Butler,
>          supra.
>
>33.  Court of appeals is not empowered to set
>     aside tax courts factual findings unless
>     they are without support of substantial
>     evidence, or basis of the whole record,
>     court of appeals is left with the firm
>     conviction that justice has miscarried.
>     See:
>          Haman v. C.I.R., 500 F 2d 401, C.A.
>          9, 1974.)
>
>34.  Although taxpayer when filing earlier
>     return of enclosed letter protesting
>     government policies and proclaimed a
>     general intent to seek ways to resist
>     payment of taxes, since he did not repeat
>     protest in letter attached to W-4 form,
>     with employer showing that he had 20
>     dependents rather than the previous
>     claimed 6 and did not in any way refer to
>     protest when asked for an explanation of
>     increase in number of dependents, his
>     conviction for wilfully supplying
>     employer with false or fraudulent
>     information about income tax withholding
>     could not be set aside on the theory that
>     his claim of dependents could have
>     deceived no one.
>     See:
>          She v. U.S., 506 F 2d 1226, C.A. Va
>          1974.
>
>35.  Subpoenas duces tecum requiring bank
>     president to appear and produce records
>     of defendant's bank account constituted
>     unlawful invasion of defendants privacy
>     and evidence obtained as result of such
>     subpoenas should have been suppressed
>     where they were issued by the United
>     States Attorney rather than by a court,
>     and no return was made upon subpoenas to
>     the court and subpoenas were issued for
>     dates when Grand Jury was not in session.
>     U.S. Constitution, Amendment 4, FDIC #2,
>     12 USCA 1829 b.
>     See:
>          U.S. v. Miller, 500 F 2d 751, C.A.
>          Ga 1974.
>
>36.  Under the Fourteenth Amendment, the
>     legislature is bound to provide a method
>     for the assessment and collections of
>     taxes that shall not be inconsistent with
>     the natural justice.
>     See:
>          Turpin v. Lenon, 187 U.S. 51, 60
>          (1902).
>
>37.  To lay with one hand the power of the
>     government on the property of the
>     citizen, and with the other to bestow it
>     on favored individuals to aid private
>     enterprise and build up private fortunes,
>     is none the less robbery because it is
>     done under the forms of law and is called
>     taxation. This is not legislation. It is
>     a decree under the legislative forms.
>     See:
>          Miller 20 Wall, 655, 663, 664
>          (1874).
>
>38.  Pennsylvania declares income tax,
>     graduated style, as illegal, and outlaws
>     it in the state of Pennsylvania.
>     See:
>          Amidon v. Kane, Pa. 279 A. 2d 53.
>
>39.  Internal Revenue Service could not seize
>     private records even with a seizure
>     warrant.
>     See:
>          Vincent R. Hill v. Jay G. Philpott,
>          District Director of IRS, et al.,
>          No. 18487, January Session, 1971:
>          The Seventh Circuit Court of
>          Appeals.
>
>40.  The power to lay and collect taxes
>     conferred upon congress by Article 1,
>     Sec. 8, Clause 1, of the Federal
>     Constitution, broad as it is, may not be
>     invoked in such a way that it violates
>     the privileges against self-
>     incrimination.
>     See:
>          Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23, 89,
>          S. Ct. 5, 21, L ed 2d 24.
>
>41.  The primary purpose of Par. 7605 (b) of
>     the 1954 IRC, which provides that "no
>     taxpayer shall be subjected to
>     unnecessary examination or
>     investigations," is no more than to
>     emphasize prudent judgment in wielding
>     the extensive powers granted to them by
>     the Internal Revenue Code.
>     See:
>          U.S. v. Powell, 379, U.S. 48, 85.
>
>42.  The decision of the collector of revenue
>     ceases to be conclusive when an appeal is
>     taken from his decisions.
>     See:
>          Arthur v. Unkart, 96 U.S. 118.
>
>43.  Federal Courts must first determine what
>     property or rights to property an
>     individual has under state law in
>     applying an federal revenue act for
>     purpose of determining whether property
>     may be sold for unpaid taxes.
>     See:
>          Herndon v. U.S., 501 F 2d 1219, C.A.
>          Ark. 1974.
>
>44.  Under Federal income tax statute allowing
>     IRS to levy on assets of taxpayer subject
>     to jeopardy assessment. Section provides
>     for stay of sale of seized property
>     pending tax court decision necessarily
>     overrides section providing generally for
>     authority of Treasury Secretary or his
>     delegate in any case in which he may levy
>     upon property to seize or sell such
>     property or property rights.
>     See:
>          Clark v. Campbell, 501 F 2d 108, Ca
>          tex 1974.) (26 U.S.C.A. IRC 1954,
>          6331 a, b. (3)).
>
>45.  IRS has been disallowed to make emergency
>     tax assessment, since agency has not been
>     giving taxpayers the procedural
>     safeguards the law requires,
>     See:
>          U.S. v. I.R.S., Jan 14, 1976, U.S.
>          Court Voted against IRS 5 to 3. The
>          majority ruling was by Justice
>          Thruston Marshall.
>
>46.  . . . Internal Revenue Service cannot
>     prevail on a deficiency assessment and,
>     thus injunctive relief may be appropriate
>     when the asserted claim is entirely
>     excessive, arbitrary, capricious and
>     without factual foundation. 26 USCA IRS
>     Code Sec. 7421 (a),
>     See:
>          Shapiro v. Secretary of State, 499 F
>          2d 527.
>
>47.  Where right to refund of income taxes
>     paid is clear, mere difficulty in
>     determining, with exactitude the amount
>     of recovery, will not defeat the right.
>     See:
>          National service Inc., v. U.S., 379,
>          F Supp 831, D.C. Ga 1974.
>
>48.  The purpose of statute providing that no
>     suit for recovery of any internal revenue
>     tax allegedly erroneously or illegally
>     assessed or collected, shall be
>     maintained until a claim for refund of
>     credit has been filed with Commissioner
>     of Internal Revenue, is to afford IRS an
>     opportunity" to consider and dispose of
>     claim without expense and time involved
>     in litigation and to prevent surprise on
>     the facts.
>     See:
>          Lemoge v. U.S., 378 F. Supp, 228
>          D.C. Cal 1974.
>
>49.  Where taxpayers did not raise issue of
>     denial of "due process" at trial in tax
>     court, the issue was inappropriate for
>     appellate consideration.
>     See:
>          Hayutin v. C.I.R., 508 F 2d 462,
>          C.A. 10,1974.
>
>50.  In Federal Tax matters, congress can
>     condition taxpayers right to contest
>     validity of tax assessments right much as
>     it sees fit.
>     See:
>          Rockwell v. C.I.R., 512, F. 2d 882
>          Ca 9 1975.
>
>51.  The IRS cannot sue anyone and they are
>     not a branch of the Federal government.
>     See:
>          U.S. v. SYLVESTER A. ZIEBATH & RUSEL
>          J. JAGIM, CR 90-50040, WD US
>          DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA.
>
>
>

========================================================================
Paul Andrew Mitchell                 : Counselor at Law, federal witness
B.A., Political Science, UCLA;  M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine

tel:     (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night
email:   [address in tool bar]       : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU
website: http://www.supremelaw.com   : visit the Supreme Law Library now
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech,  at its best
             Tucson, Arizona state   : state zone,  not the federal zone
             Postal Zone 85719/tdc   : USPS delays first class  w/o this

As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice.  We shall
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal.
========================================================================
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]

      


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail